Emily Morton

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after her daughter drove the vehicle with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant, a single mother of four living in a rural area without public transit, had no reasonable alternative to the vehicle.

The Tribunal concluded that the loss of the vehicle caused immediate, significant, and lasting financial, employment, and educational losses.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to suspend her driver's licence for failing to submit a satisfactory medical report.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the suspension was made under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act, which is not an appealable decision under s. 50 of the Act.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that Ontario Regulation 340/94 only prescribes decisions made under s. 32(5)(b)(i) as appealable.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after police stopped it and found the driver's licence was suspended.

The appellant, who was the registered owner, argued they exercised due diligence because they had permitted a friend to use the vehicle, and the friend subsequently allowed the suspended driver to operate it without the appellant's knowledge.

The Tribunal found that the due diligence defence under s. 50.2(3)(c) requires the owner to take reasonable steps to determine the licence status of the person actually driving at the time of impoundment.

Because the appellant did not know the driver would be operating the vehicle and made no inquiries regarding their licence status, the due diligence test was not met.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after his son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen by his son and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the appellant knew his son had taken it previously but did not change where he kept the keys, and there was no intent to deprive the owner.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to public transit as a reasonable alternative.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence and the Minister's decision to downgrade it to a Class G licence.

The suspension was based on allegations that the appellant's driving examiner participated in a bribery scheme, undermining the reliability of the road test.

The Tribunal found the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the appellant participated in the scheme or that his specific test was compromised, and set aside the suspension.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the licence downgrade for lack of jurisdiction, finding the decision was made under a statutory provision for which no right of appeal exists.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial AB driver's licence to a G class licence due to his cardiovascular disease and the implantation of an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's medical condition, specifically the ICD and documented ventricular tachycardia, posed a risk of sudden incapacitation that exceeded the acceptable threshold for commercial drivers under the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards.

The Tribunal confirmed the Minister's decision to downgrade the licence, concluding that the condition was likely to significantly interfere with the appellant's ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle, which occurred when he lent it to a driver whose licence was subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that the driver was subject to the condition and the appellant failed to exercise due diligence to verify the driver's licence status before lending the vehicle.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as he had access to alternative transportation, including a second household vehicle and rides to work.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence for 90 days under s. 47(1)(g) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Registrar argued the suspension was justified for public safety reasons, relying on an ongoing police investigation into a bribery scheme involving driving examiners.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's specific road test was compromised by dishonesty.

The evidence presented consisted of conclusory statements without sufficient factual basis to prove the appellant participated in the scheme.

The appeal was allowed and the licence suspension was set aside.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend their Class A driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

Following a teleconference hearing, the adjudicator gave oral reasons setting aside the suspension and issued a confidentiality order for certain documents.

The Tribunal ordered the suspension set aside and outlined the process for requesting written reasons.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle, which occurred after the vehicle was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The Notice of Appeal was filed 54 days after the impoundment, well past the 15-day limitation period.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the delay, noted prejudice to the Registrar, and determined the appeal lacked merit on both the due diligence and exceptional hardship grounds.

The motion for an extension of time was denied, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her brother was caught driving it while his license was suspended.

The appellant, a single mother of four children with various medical and developmental needs, appealed the impoundment on the basis of exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle for commuting to work or transporting her children to medical appointments.

The Tribunal concluded that the impoundment posed a threat to the health and safety of the children and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a reported cognitive impairment.

At the hearing, the appellant brought a motion for a confidentiality order to protect his personal health information, which the Tribunal denied, finding no serious risk to an important public interest under the Sherman Estate test.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the medical evidence, specifically a Medical Condition Report from the appellant's physician, established that the appellant suffers from cognitive impairment with deficits in visuospatial and executive functions.

The Tribunal concluded that this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of a vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing he had sold the vehicle prior to the impoundment and was no longer the owner.

The appeal was filed past the 15-day deadline, prompting a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the appeal lacked merit.

The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction under s. 50.2 to adjudicate disputes over vehicle ownership, and the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on the grounds of due diligence or exceptional hardship.

The appellant, a registered real estate broker, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his registration and an Immediate Suspension Order issued by the Registrar.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence and, noting that the parties had entered into Minutes of Settlement consenting to the extension, ordered the Immediate Suspension Order extended until the conclusion of the hearing.

The hearing regarding the Notice of Proposal was adjourned to allow for document production and an upcoming case conference.

The appellant brokerage appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its registration and an Immediate Suspension Order issued by the Registrar under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in the appellant's absence.

Based on Minutes of Settlement executed by the parties prior to the hearing, the Tribunal ordered the extension of the Immediate Suspension Order until the conclusion of the hearing.

The Tribunal also adjourned the hearing regarding the Notice of Proposal to allow the parties to exchange documents and attend a scheduled case conference.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied a treatment plan for home modifications.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by misapprehending evidence related to causation and the characterization of his impairments.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the original decision applied the correct legal test for causation and provided thorough reasons for the weight assigned to the evidence.

The Adjudicator concluded the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the weight of the evidence rather than demonstrating a reviewable error.

The applicant, who has pre-existing global developmental delay, autism spectrum disorder, and a seizure disorder, sought $3,528.83 for home modifications following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the accident worsened his seizures and aggressive behaviours, necessitating the modifications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident caused an exacerbation of his pre-existing impairments.

The adjudicator noted significant inconsistencies between the grandparents' subjective reports of worsened behaviour and contemporaneous pre-accident medical records, and preferred the respondent's medical evidence that the accident did not cause the reported deterioration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and that the respondent insurer had complied with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law and fact by failing to apply the consequences of s. 38(11) and by failing to properly apply the principles from Hedley v. Aviva regarding boilerplate denial letters.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the adjudicator had considered Hedley and reasonably concluded that the denial letters, while generic, sufficiently cited a medical reason for denial.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was merely attempting to re-litigate the initial decision, which does not meet the high threshold for reconsideration.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct and deceit, and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved fabricating an anonymous traffic complaint against a known community member, conducting unauthorized database queries, and making false statements during the subsequent investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal on all grounds.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments, rejection of the appellant's medical defence, and conclusion that the telecommunication recording system was reliable were reasonable.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld as falling within the reasonable range given the seriousness of the misconduct.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied treatment plans for psychological and chiropractic services, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he sustained a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG and relied on a psychological report.

The Tribunal found the psychological report unreliable due to methodological flaws and inconsistencies with contemporaneous clinical records.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG and dismissed the claims for the disputed treatment plans.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial letters complied with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.